IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Defendant No.1's objections to the documents and invocation of foreign exchange regulations were beyond the scope of the contract, and the Defendant No.2's waiver did not absolve the Defendant No.1 of its obligations under the Letter of Credit.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1. The instant suit is filed by the Plaintiff firm praying for decree of declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to encash the Letter of Credit bearing number DBBL/105990071 dated 1st November, 1999 issued by the Defendant No.1; injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or their subordinates, agents, men or otherwise howsoever from in any way withholding any payment due to the Plaintiff under the Letter of Credit bearing number DBBL/105990071 dated 1st November, 1999 valued at $99,600 US dollar together with interest thereon at a rate of 24% per annum; decree for a sum of $103431 US dollar against the defendants jointly; perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from giving any effect or further effect to or acting in terms of or pursuant to or in furtherance of its communications being Annexures “C-1” and “C-2” to the plaint; interim interest along with ancillary prayers.

2. The plaint case in nutshell is that the Plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 exporting various products, having its office at 20, Hara Chandra Mullick Street, Kolkata – 700005 within jurisdiction of this Court. The Defendant No.1 is a banking company having registered office at 55, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka Bangladesh and is the issuing bank of the Letter of Credit bearing number DBBL/105990071 dated 1st November, 1999 valued at $99,600 US dollar (in short “the said Letter of Credit”). The Defendant No.2 is an importer based in Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, importing products into that country. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.2 entered into an agreement at the office of the Plaintiff for sale, supply and export by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.2 of 200 metric ton Indian red pulse (Indian Moosur Dal) at a rate of $498 US dollar per metric ton. This was in the month of October, 1999. In terms of the agreement the Defendant No.2 was to open a Letter of Credit with the Defendant No.1 bank in favour of one Shiva Shakti Enterprises at New Delhi bearing number DBBL/105990071 dated 01/11/1999 for $99, 600 US dollar towards price of 200 metric ton Indian red pulse (Indian Moosur Dal). The said Letter of Credit was amended from time to time. By an amendment dated 21/12/1999, the said Letter of Credit was transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. Part shipment was allowed under the said Letter of Credit. Number of amendments were made and finally by amendment dated 03/02/2000 shipment and expiry date were extended upto 15/02/2000 and 29/02/2000 respectively. There would be two shipments.

3. Between 29/01/2000 and 07/02/2000, the Plaintiff sold, delivered and/or exported 200 metric ton Indian red pulse (Indian Moosur Dal) in two consignments, in terms of the agreement, through a common carrier M/s Amit Road Carrier complying with all the export and customs related and other formalities. The Plaintiff submitted bills of exports for dutiable goods and export documents before the customs authorities and the later authorities allowed export of goods.

4. After export, the Plaintiff produced all the documents to the negotiating bank namely Bank of India, Calcutta Overseas Branch, Export Department at 23B, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700001 within jurisdiction of this Court. The negotiating bank is not a party to the suit. The negotiating bank duly negotiated the documents and forwarded the same to the Defendant No.1 on 01/02/2000 and 09/02/2000 in respect of two consignments of 100 metric ton each valued at $49,800 US dollar each. The Defendant No.1 alleged discrepancies in the documents in terms of two letters dated 10/02/2000 and 19/02/2000 in respect of the first consignment and in terms of the letters dated 22/02/2000, 24/02/2000 and 01/03/2000 in respect of the second consignment. The negotiating bank refuted the alleged discrepancies but the Defendant No.1 turned deaf ear and instructed the reimbursing bank namely Arab Bangladesh Ban